Anton, I see your point. But remember that the IESG forced us to provide a secure transport, which IMHO will be the most-violated part of syslog-protocol once it is a RFC (meaning that -prototocol and -transport-udp will be implemented but not -tls). SSH still seems to be not a good option in my point of view. I guess we are stuck...
Given my assumption on the expected seldom implementation of -tls, we could of course go ahead and put this through with as few effort as possible, just to fulfil the formal requirement of the IESG... Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:19 PM > To: Balazs Scheidler; Rainer Gerhards > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > I don't agree with putting all work on hold. Syslog-protocol > and syslog-transport-udp still make sense to standardize. And > we could explore syslog-transport-ssh, possibly soliciting > input from IPR holders first. > > Thanks, > Anton. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:39 AM > > To: Rainer Gerhards > > Cc: Anton Okmianski (aokmians); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > > > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the > > IPR claim and > > > what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent > > application". > > > This sounds like someone took what we have been discussing (and is > > > widely deployed), brought it to a lawyer and is now trying > > to make some > > > patent out of it. This smells very bad. > > > > > > Without knowing what exactly is claimed to be invented by > > the claimer, I > > > can not judge the effect it will have on my work. Anyhow, I do not > > > intend to invest any of my time into something that > > somebody else claims > > > exclusive rights too. If I did, I'd end up with the need to "pay" > > > (money-wise or other) for the right to use my own work. > > Would I be smart > > > if I did that? ;) > > > > > > The licensing terms themselves sound fair (but are vague > > enough to do > > > so...). My root concern is that there is nothing that has > > been invented > > > by that party. I am still waiting for someone to patent the > > use of the > > > letter "a" ("@" has been tried AFIK)... > > > > > > I think using a patented technology inside a standard will > > definitely > > > hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is > > something as > > > trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work > > on hold until > > > further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no > > > syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice... > > > > My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US > > patent system > > specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete > about the > > patent? > > > > -- > > Bazsi > > > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
